It is a trend that even small grassroots nonprofits can become involved in, and this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview.
Even though I share the same skepticism about cause marketing as the article's author, for some nonprofits it is a natual fit and should be utilized.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“In what seems another life, I once taught a course about the history of American Consumerism. Although I tried not to turn the course into a rant about runaway consumerism and big business, I'm afraid it was pretty tough.
“As cause marketing came on the scene, I was cautious and reluctant, not sure anything good could come out of this "collusion" of cause and companies.
“However, if there was a battle to hold the line on cause marketing, it is clear that it has been lost. And maybe that is just as well. After all, if we want companies to be responsible (CSR), then it's hard not to accept cause marketing as part of the CSR mix.
“Plus, nonprofits and businesses have proved themselves to be very adept at blending marketing and causes. Causes have welcomed the promotional power that they otherwise would not have, and companies enjoy the "halo" affect for their products.
“What we reluctant cause shoppers can do is keep tabs on the trends, point out the differences between good cause marketing and bad, and push the field to more inclusiveness where small, local organizations have just as much of a shot at landing a business partner as do better branded, national nonprofits.
“Here are the trends that seem to dominate today's cause marketing scene:
“Trend #1: Growth
“The trend for cause marketing is definitely up and rosy. Cone Communications recently released the results of a global survey that found that consumers everywhere are on board:
• 81% of consumers around the world want companies to address key social and environmental issues; 93% say companies should go beyond just legal compliance to operate responsibly; and 94% expect companies to analyze and evolve their businesses to make their impact as positive as possible.”
Showing posts with label Philanthropy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philanthropy. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Fundraising 2011
It has been a challenging period for nonprofit fundraising, so this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview of what some of the current research is telling us.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Book Review. Giving 2.0
This is a petty good review of a new book, Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World, by Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, which makes it sound worth a read and I have ordered it so will let you know what I think after I get a chance to take a look at it.
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
Monday, October 24, 2011
Principles & Compassion
A perplexing situation that has been obvious for generations is how some of the largest foundations begun with money from compassionate American capitalists have morphed into some of the most virulent opposition against capitalism and America.
Fortunately, every so often, principles arise (Bravo Goldman Sachs) as this story from the Wall Street Journal reports.
An excerpt.
“Earlier this month, hundreds of New Yorkers received an unusual dinner invitation from the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union.
“The Credit Union, a small lender serving New York's poor, was holding a fund-raiser to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Among the chief sponsors listed on the invitation was Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“Among the honorees: "Occupy Wall Street."
“They might as well have asked Marie Antoinette to dig into her purse to support Madame Defarge's knitting business.
“Shortly after the invitation was sent out, Goldman withdrew its name from the dinner. It also pulled the plug on its $5,000 funding pledge.
“The debate that ensued—between bankers and nonprofit chiefs, philanthropists and financiers—turned a modest fund-raising dinner into a heated battleground between Wall Street and the Occupy protestors, exposing contradictions on both sides.
“On one side was Goldman Sachs, which told the credit union it didn't want its name or money used to celebrate a protest movement known for placards like "Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil," dinner organizers said. The investment bank's giant glass-and-steel headquarters tower is just blocks away from the protest headquarters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.
“On the other side of the debate were several hosts and board members of the credit union, who said honoring the protesters is more important than the money from Goldman—even though the funds were slated to cover a quarter of the dinner's $20,000 cost.
"Their money was welcome, but not at the price of giving up what we believe in," said Pablo DeFilippi, one of the dinner hosts and associate director of member development at the National Federal of Community Development Credit Unions. "We lost their $5,000, but we have our principles."
Fortunately, every so often, principles arise (Bravo Goldman Sachs) as this story from the Wall Street Journal reports.
An excerpt.
“Earlier this month, hundreds of New Yorkers received an unusual dinner invitation from the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union.
“The Credit Union, a small lender serving New York's poor, was holding a fund-raiser to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Among the chief sponsors listed on the invitation was Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
“Among the honorees: "Occupy Wall Street."
“They might as well have asked Marie Antoinette to dig into her purse to support Madame Defarge's knitting business.
“Shortly after the invitation was sent out, Goldman withdrew its name from the dinner. It also pulled the plug on its $5,000 funding pledge.
“The debate that ensued—between bankers and nonprofit chiefs, philanthropists and financiers—turned a modest fund-raising dinner into a heated battleground between Wall Street and the Occupy protestors, exposing contradictions on both sides.
“On one side was Goldman Sachs, which told the credit union it didn't want its name or money used to celebrate a protest movement known for placards like "Goldman Sachs is the work of the devil," dinner organizers said. The investment bank's giant glass-and-steel headquarters tower is just blocks away from the protest headquarters in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.
“On the other side of the debate were several hosts and board members of the credit union, who said honoring the protesters is more important than the money from Goldman—even though the funds were slated to cover a quarter of the dinner's $20,000 cost.
"Their money was welcome, but not at the price of giving up what we believe in," said Pablo DeFilippi, one of the dinner hosts and associate director of member development at the National Federal of Community Development Credit Unions. "We lost their $5,000, but we have our principles."
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Bequest Giving
It is generally something that is utilized only by large nonprofits, but has great relevance for small organizations with tight organizational structure and controls.
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Story of a Philanthropist
The Philanthropy Roundtable Magazine excels at publishing wonderful stories of philanthropists, how they came to be so and the causes they believe in.
This recent story is another great look at a philanthropist.
An excerpt.
“Hank Rowan was shocked. He paused for a moment, not sure if he had heard correctly. Sometimes he wondered why he even bothered with his hearing aid. No, he thought to himself, I’m pretty sure I heard that correctly. Astonishing, he thought, really astonishing. “This,” he finally told his guests, “is extraordinary.”
“It was early March 2008. The men had gathered at Rowan’s offices in suburban Rancocas, New Jersey, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. Outside the air was warm and wet, hinting at an early spring. The visitors were from nearby Media, Pennsylvania. They represented the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades. Rowan was one of their foremost benefactors.
“Rowan was first introduced to the school by Mike Piotrowicz, a Williamson trustee and booster. What Rowan found was a residential junior college dedicated to teaching skilled trades: carpentry, masonry, painting, landscaping, metalwork, and power plant management. Admissions are limited to unmarried men under the age of 20, all of whom come from families at no more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Each of the school’s 275 students receives a full scholarship.
“Rowan also knew that the 120-year-old school was facing an increasingly uncertain future. Williamson accepts no federal support, and the (now discontinued) stipend it received from the state came to just $64,000 annually. Over the course of the previous decade, its endowment had grown 20 percent, while its operating costs had risen 60 percent. Capital improvements were needed across the century-old campus. Fundraising was consuming ever more time and energy among the school’s senior leadership. The board became increasingly uncomfortable with the financial outlook. In order to secure the long-term viability of the school, it approved a $50 million capital campaign—a seemingly insurmountable sum for a school whose most successful campaign had netted $11 million.
“This, Rowan decided, is a unique opportunity to help a unique charity. In November 2007, five months before the meeting in his office, Rowan had issued a $5 million challenge to Williamson—in nominal terms, the largest gift in the school’s history. It was carefully structured, intending to open new funding sources for the school. It promised to match, dollar for dollar, any gifts from first-time donors, any gifts from people whose lifetime giving was less than $5,000, and any other gift at least five times larger than the previous largest gift. “Try this out,” Rowan said at the time. “I’d like to see how you do.”
“On that warm March morning, Rowan had expected an update about the challenge grant. He knew that the school had raised about $2 million so far, and he was curious how much more progress had been made. But the men who went to Rancocas on that March morning had unexpected news for Rowan. Paul Reid, then the president of Williamson, delivered the message.
“Reid told Rowan that he had visited another local philanthropist about the challenge. Rowan didn’t recognize the other man’s name. This gentleman, Reid continued, had a counter-offer of his own. If I were to put up $20 million, he had proposed, would Hank Rowan be willing to match me?
“Forge of Experience
“Henry Rowan is not easily surprised. An engineer by temperament as well as training, he has long been a methodical planner and a careful thinker. Tall, with erect posture and bright, alert eyes, the 87-year-old Rowan still strides purposefully and speaks in crisply formed sentences. Those traits have served him well throughout his storied career. Rowan is the founder of Inductotherm Industries, the global leader in the manufacture of induction systems for melting, heating, holding, and pouring metal.
“If anything, Rowan is accustomed to surprising others. In August 1945, for example, he dumbfounded the head finance officer at Roswell Air Force Base. Rowan had been training to be a bomber pilot since June 1943. The Germans surrendered shortly after he qualified on the B-17 Flying Fortress. He never deployed overseas. After V-J Day, the other pilots on base took it easy, passing time by playing cards, shooting pool, or knocking around volleyballs. Not Hank Rowan. He realized that he knew nothing about making payroll, but thought it was a skill that might someday be useful. So Rowan badgered the finance officer until he was given permission to spend his last two months in the military handling personnel compensation.
“After he was discharged, Rowan and his new wife, Betty, packed their belongings into a beat-up 1929 Chevy Coupe. In a car that topped out at 28 miles per hour, stopping five times along the way to retighten the engine bearings, they puttered from New Mexico to Massachusetts. There, Rowan re-enrolled at MIT. Supported by the G.I. Bill and savings from his service pay, he completed his degree in electrical engineering in 20 months—during which time, Betty gave birth to their first two children. The day after graduation, Rowan went to work. He took a job with Ajax Electrothermic Corporation in Trenton, New Jersey, then the world’s leading manufacturer of induction furnaces. Rowan was excited to come on board.
“He was soon disappointed. Since the discovery of the induction melting process in 1915, Ajax had enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the market. The company had grown comfortable, complacent. It expected customers to adjust to its expectations, rather than the other way around. Rowan chafed at its self-satisfaction, leaving the company in August 1952. But his restless mind kept grasping at missed opportunities, at the improvements that Ajax had always been reluctant to pursue. In April 1953, a friend and former customer named Paul Foley approached Rowan, telling him about his need for a furnace to melt beryllium copper. Rowan was plenty busy, but he was interested in the technical challenge. Over the next six weeks, he and Betty spent their free time in the backyard, building a 50-pound induction furnace.
“That furnace marked the launch of Inductotherm Industries. On June 6, 1954—exactly 10 years after D-Day—Rowan returned to the induction business as CEO, chief engineer, and, with Foley, half-owner of Inductotherm.”
This recent story is another great look at a philanthropist.
An excerpt.
“Hank Rowan was shocked. He paused for a moment, not sure if he had heard correctly. Sometimes he wondered why he even bothered with his hearing aid. No, he thought to himself, I’m pretty sure I heard that correctly. Astonishing, he thought, really astonishing. “This,” he finally told his guests, “is extraordinary.”
“It was early March 2008. The men had gathered at Rowan’s offices in suburban Rancocas, New Jersey, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. Outside the air was warm and wet, hinting at an early spring. The visitors were from nearby Media, Pennsylvania. They represented the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades. Rowan was one of their foremost benefactors.
“Rowan was first introduced to the school by Mike Piotrowicz, a Williamson trustee and booster. What Rowan found was a residential junior college dedicated to teaching skilled trades: carpentry, masonry, painting, landscaping, metalwork, and power plant management. Admissions are limited to unmarried men under the age of 20, all of whom come from families at no more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Each of the school’s 275 students receives a full scholarship.
“Rowan also knew that the 120-year-old school was facing an increasingly uncertain future. Williamson accepts no federal support, and the (now discontinued) stipend it received from the state came to just $64,000 annually. Over the course of the previous decade, its endowment had grown 20 percent, while its operating costs had risen 60 percent. Capital improvements were needed across the century-old campus. Fundraising was consuming ever more time and energy among the school’s senior leadership. The board became increasingly uncomfortable with the financial outlook. In order to secure the long-term viability of the school, it approved a $50 million capital campaign—a seemingly insurmountable sum for a school whose most successful campaign had netted $11 million.
“This, Rowan decided, is a unique opportunity to help a unique charity. In November 2007, five months before the meeting in his office, Rowan had issued a $5 million challenge to Williamson—in nominal terms, the largest gift in the school’s history. It was carefully structured, intending to open new funding sources for the school. It promised to match, dollar for dollar, any gifts from first-time donors, any gifts from people whose lifetime giving was less than $5,000, and any other gift at least five times larger than the previous largest gift. “Try this out,” Rowan said at the time. “I’d like to see how you do.”
“On that warm March morning, Rowan had expected an update about the challenge grant. He knew that the school had raised about $2 million so far, and he was curious how much more progress had been made. But the men who went to Rancocas on that March morning had unexpected news for Rowan. Paul Reid, then the president of Williamson, delivered the message.
“Reid told Rowan that he had visited another local philanthropist about the challenge. Rowan didn’t recognize the other man’s name. This gentleman, Reid continued, had a counter-offer of his own. If I were to put up $20 million, he had proposed, would Hank Rowan be willing to match me?
“Forge of Experience
“Henry Rowan is not easily surprised. An engineer by temperament as well as training, he has long been a methodical planner and a careful thinker. Tall, with erect posture and bright, alert eyes, the 87-year-old Rowan still strides purposefully and speaks in crisply formed sentences. Those traits have served him well throughout his storied career. Rowan is the founder of Inductotherm Industries, the global leader in the manufacture of induction systems for melting, heating, holding, and pouring metal.
“If anything, Rowan is accustomed to surprising others. In August 1945, for example, he dumbfounded the head finance officer at Roswell Air Force Base. Rowan had been training to be a bomber pilot since June 1943. The Germans surrendered shortly after he qualified on the B-17 Flying Fortress. He never deployed overseas. After V-J Day, the other pilots on base took it easy, passing time by playing cards, shooting pool, or knocking around volleyballs. Not Hank Rowan. He realized that he knew nothing about making payroll, but thought it was a skill that might someday be useful. So Rowan badgered the finance officer until he was given permission to spend his last two months in the military handling personnel compensation.
“After he was discharged, Rowan and his new wife, Betty, packed their belongings into a beat-up 1929 Chevy Coupe. In a car that topped out at 28 miles per hour, stopping five times along the way to retighten the engine bearings, they puttered from New Mexico to Massachusetts. There, Rowan re-enrolled at MIT. Supported by the G.I. Bill and savings from his service pay, he completed his degree in electrical engineering in 20 months—during which time, Betty gave birth to their first two children. The day after graduation, Rowan went to work. He took a job with Ajax Electrothermic Corporation in Trenton, New Jersey, then the world’s leading manufacturer of induction furnaces. Rowan was excited to come on board.
“He was soon disappointed. Since the discovery of the induction melting process in 1915, Ajax had enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the market. The company had grown comfortable, complacent. It expected customers to adjust to its expectations, rather than the other way around. Rowan chafed at its self-satisfaction, leaving the company in August 1952. But his restless mind kept grasping at missed opportunities, at the improvements that Ajax had always been reluctant to pursue. In April 1953, a friend and former customer named Paul Foley approached Rowan, telling him about his need for a furnace to melt beryllium copper. Rowan was plenty busy, but he was interested in the technical challenge. Over the next six weeks, he and Betty spent their free time in the backyard, building a 50-pound induction furnace.
“That furnace marked the launch of Inductotherm Industries. On June 6, 1954—exactly 10 years after D-Day—Rowan returned to the induction business as CEO, chief engineer, and, with Foley, half-owner of Inductotherm.”
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Retaining & Creating Donors
Very good advice from Contributions Magazine.
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
Monday, September 19, 2011
Donation Statistics
The ongoing difficulty raising funds is reported in an article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, with links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
Friday, August 5, 2011
Corporate Philanthropy
It is an avenue too few grassroots nonprofits tackle but it can be a very supportive one, and this paper from Harvard Business Weekly reports on a recent paper examining it.
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
Monday, August 1, 2011
Due Diligence
It is something far too few donors conduct on programs they encounter face to face, especially small grassroots efforts where they are often enamoured by the charismatic founder, which is what this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review is about.
An excerpt.
“Donors should always aim to put their philanthropic capital to the best possible use. However, in the current economic climate, where resources are diminished and society’s problems are all the more pressing, the need for strategic giving is greater than ever. Moreover, the emergence of scandals such as the one underlying Greg Mortensen’s Three Cups of Tea has put the onus on donors to do their homework. With that in mind, I suggest ten due diligence practices for would-be funders who are in the process of sizing up a philanthropic opportunity.
“Don’t let dazzling stardom cloud your vision. Though the leader of your potential grantee may be brimming with charisma, be sure to go through all the standard checks that you normally would.
“On a related note: Look closely at the leadership. Is the leader’s brilliance a mask for the structural weakness of the organization? As the management guru Peter Drucker once famously advised, “No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”
“Use multiple sources for your decision-making. Don’t rely on just one set of opinions when forming a view about a nonprofit; carefully consult the whole range of stakeholders with whom they work. Speak with other funders in the same issue area—and not just those who are supporting your potential grantee. Conduct a site visit, since often there is nothing like seeing it for yourself. If that’s not possible, interview staff working at various levels throughout the organization, including the executive director, the project managers, and the board.
“Don’t overlook governance. In our recent Think Philanthropy report, “The State of UK Charity Boards (2011),” we contend that an engaged board—with members who have diverse skills and networks, and who exercise full oversight over their organization—are essential to the success of a nonprofit.
“Use Web 2.0 and peer review tools. One of the Internet’s most useful features for budding donors is its interactivity—it’s easy to find and share donor experiences with charities and other organizations.
“Remember that growth does not mean effectiveness. The mere fact that a charity is growing in staff size and income does not indicate that it is more successfully pursuing its mission. It merely indicates that it is good at fundraising. More money can fuel more marketing prowess, but the key question is whether that extra money fuels more programmatic output.
“Consider funding through intermediaries. There are several organisations, such as Global Greengrants, Give2Asia, the African Women’s Development Fund, and innumerable community foundations worldwide, that provide excellent channels for funding projects; they combine a skill for grant-making with on-the-ground knowledge of the area or community to which they are giving.”
An excerpt.
“Donors should always aim to put their philanthropic capital to the best possible use. However, in the current economic climate, where resources are diminished and society’s problems are all the more pressing, the need for strategic giving is greater than ever. Moreover, the emergence of scandals such as the one underlying Greg Mortensen’s Three Cups of Tea has put the onus on donors to do their homework. With that in mind, I suggest ten due diligence practices for would-be funders who are in the process of sizing up a philanthropic opportunity.
“Don’t let dazzling stardom cloud your vision. Though the leader of your potential grantee may be brimming with charisma, be sure to go through all the standard checks that you normally would.
“On a related note: Look closely at the leadership. Is the leader’s brilliance a mask for the structural weakness of the organization? As the management guru Peter Drucker once famously advised, “No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.”
“Use multiple sources for your decision-making. Don’t rely on just one set of opinions when forming a view about a nonprofit; carefully consult the whole range of stakeholders with whom they work. Speak with other funders in the same issue area—and not just those who are supporting your potential grantee. Conduct a site visit, since often there is nothing like seeing it for yourself. If that’s not possible, interview staff working at various levels throughout the organization, including the executive director, the project managers, and the board.
“Don’t overlook governance. In our recent Think Philanthropy report, “The State of UK Charity Boards (2011),” we contend that an engaged board—with members who have diverse skills and networks, and who exercise full oversight over their organization—are essential to the success of a nonprofit.
“Use Web 2.0 and peer review tools. One of the Internet’s most useful features for budding donors is its interactivity—it’s easy to find and share donor experiences with charities and other organizations.
“Remember that growth does not mean effectiveness. The mere fact that a charity is growing in staff size and income does not indicate that it is more successfully pursuing its mission. It merely indicates that it is good at fundraising. More money can fuel more marketing prowess, but the key question is whether that extra money fuels more programmatic output.
“Consider funding through intermediaries. There are several organisations, such as Global Greengrants, Give2Asia, the African Women’s Development Fund, and innumerable community foundations worldwide, that provide excellent channels for funding projects; they combine a skill for grant-making with on-the-ground knowledge of the area or community to which they are giving.”
Friday, July 29, 2011
Compassion Research
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review reports on the results of a new study.
An excerpt.
“One death is a tragedy; 1 million is a statistic,” Joseph Stalin is supposed to have said. The more people we see suffering, the less we care. It’s an unfortunate quirk that psychologists so far have blamed on our brains: Humans are tuned to individuals, the thinking goes; we are just not capable of feeling compassion for whole groups.
“A new study calls that comfortable conclusion into question. “The collapse of compassion is an active process,” says Daryl Cameron, a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s not some passive limitation on human experience. It’s the end result of an active choice not to feel something.”
“Cameron designed a series of experiments to find out why four people in pain don’t get quadruple the sympathy of one. In one test, he had 60 college students read about one, four, or eight children from Darfur. The students who said they were better at regulating their emotions—who don’t easily lose focus or control, and usually know how to make themselves feel better—reported being less upset by multiple Darfur children in crisis than by one. In another experiment, different students reading about these same children were told either to let themselves fully experience their emotions or to think objectively and be detached. Again, those who proactively regulated their emotions showed a collapse of compassion when viewing eight victims compared to one.
“This suggests that people are perfectly capable of responding emotionally to groups. They just steel themselves against it. “If you really took everything to heart, to the full magnitude that all these disasters truly deserve, you’d probably be sitting home rocking yourself in a closet all day,” says Elizabeth Dunn, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved in the research. “We need to be able to cope.”
“Our capacity to empathize with a large number of people is good news for disaster relief, says Cameron. “If it is a choice, rather than a constraint, then we can try to get people to decide differently what they want to feel, and toward whom.” The bad news is that we seem to care only when we don’t have to act. Cameron’s other experiment compared students who had been prompted with the idea of a donation with students who hadn’t. “When people did not expect to have to help on the basis of their emotions, they experienced more emotion toward eight victims than toward one victim,” he says. Opening your heart is a lot easier when there’s no expected cost.”
An excerpt.
“One death is a tragedy; 1 million is a statistic,” Joseph Stalin is supposed to have said. The more people we see suffering, the less we care. It’s an unfortunate quirk that psychologists so far have blamed on our brains: Humans are tuned to individuals, the thinking goes; we are just not capable of feeling compassion for whole groups.
“A new study calls that comfortable conclusion into question. “The collapse of compassion is an active process,” says Daryl Cameron, a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s not some passive limitation on human experience. It’s the end result of an active choice not to feel something.”
“Cameron designed a series of experiments to find out why four people in pain don’t get quadruple the sympathy of one. In one test, he had 60 college students read about one, four, or eight children from Darfur. The students who said they were better at regulating their emotions—who don’t easily lose focus or control, and usually know how to make themselves feel better—reported being less upset by multiple Darfur children in crisis than by one. In another experiment, different students reading about these same children were told either to let themselves fully experience their emotions or to think objectively and be detached. Again, those who proactively regulated their emotions showed a collapse of compassion when viewing eight victims compared to one.
“This suggests that people are perfectly capable of responding emotionally to groups. They just steel themselves against it. “If you really took everything to heart, to the full magnitude that all these disasters truly deserve, you’d probably be sitting home rocking yourself in a closet all day,” says Elizabeth Dunn, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved in the research. “We need to be able to cope.”
“Our capacity to empathize with a large number of people is good news for disaster relief, says Cameron. “If it is a choice, rather than a constraint, then we can try to get people to decide differently what they want to feel, and toward whom.” The bad news is that we seem to care only when we don’t have to act. Cameron’s other experiment compared students who had been prompted with the idea of a donation with students who hadn’t. “When people did not expect to have to help on the basis of their emotions, they experienced more emotion toward eight victims than toward one victim,” he says. Opening your heart is a lot easier when there’s no expected cost.”
Friday, July 22, 2011
Charitable Giving is Up
Which is very good news as reported by Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“As the unrelenting sound of bickering continues from Washington over the debt increase, a bit of good news landed in my inbox this morning.
“Blackbaud reports that, according to its Index of Charitable Giving, charitable organizations experienced an uptick in donations in May to the tune of 11.3%. The Blackbaud Index of Charitable Giving has shown positive growth for 10 consecutive months. Furthermore, that rise has exceeded 10% for the three months ending May 2011 over the prior year.
“Blackbaud's index also indicates that the growth is enjoyed by organizations of all sizes. That is the first time since the recession started that growth has been that broad based.
“Not all sectors of the charitable marketplace fared equally in the increase in charitable giving, however. Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist and creator of The Blackbaud Index, said:
"Our newest index, representing organizations involved with international affairs, was up 13 percent reflecting significant post-Haiti growth while fundraising at arts and culture organizations grew nearly 12 percent. The increase wasn't universal however as human services and environmental organizations were still down from their year earlier results. And with job growth flat the past two months and the economy weakening; a real challenge for all nonprofits going forward will be maintaining this momentum."
An excerpt.
“As the unrelenting sound of bickering continues from Washington over the debt increase, a bit of good news landed in my inbox this morning.
“Blackbaud reports that, according to its Index of Charitable Giving, charitable organizations experienced an uptick in donations in May to the tune of 11.3%. The Blackbaud Index of Charitable Giving has shown positive growth for 10 consecutive months. Furthermore, that rise has exceeded 10% for the three months ending May 2011 over the prior year.
“Blackbaud's index also indicates that the growth is enjoyed by organizations of all sizes. That is the first time since the recession started that growth has been that broad based.
“Not all sectors of the charitable marketplace fared equally in the increase in charitable giving, however. Chuck Longfield, Blackbaud's chief scientist and creator of The Blackbaud Index, said:
"Our newest index, representing organizations involved with international affairs, was up 13 percent reflecting significant post-Haiti growth while fundraising at arts and culture organizations grew nearly 12 percent. The increase wasn't universal however as human services and environmental organizations were still down from their year earlier results. And with job growth flat the past two months and the economy weakening; a real challenge for all nonprofits going forward will be maintaining this momentum."
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Nonprofit Revenue Sources
An excellent overview of the various sources of funding, from Nonprofit About.com, with several great links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“What your nonprofit does--your programs--is the highest priority for any nonprofit manager. Revenue generation is the second.
“New ways for nonprofits to raise revenue spring into existence every year, but where those funds come from stays pretty much the same year after year. There is also a basic inventory of methods that should form the back bone of your fundraising efforts. These are, literally, your "bread and butter."
“So, where do nonprofits get their revenue?
• Individuals are the largest source of funding for nonprofit organizations. According to Giving USA, total charitable giving in the U.S. reached more than $303 billion in 2009. Of that amount 75% came from individuals.
• Corporations give in order to get...exposure, publicity, community respect, market share. Their funding is more episodic, revolving around particular campaigns, events, and projects. Corporate funding can be a good source of support for new initiatives, special programs, and special events. Look for opportunities to form partnerships for sponsorships and cause-related marketing.
• Federal, State and Local Governments. Many nonprofit institutions benefit from all levels of government. Obvious examples are public education, higher education, and the public media. Federal, state, and local government grants fund many programs provided by nonprofits, especially in areas such as urban human service nonprofits, and healthcare. Grants.gov provides up-to-date information and a directory of federal grants.”
An excerpt.
“What your nonprofit does--your programs--is the highest priority for any nonprofit manager. Revenue generation is the second.
“New ways for nonprofits to raise revenue spring into existence every year, but where those funds come from stays pretty much the same year after year. There is also a basic inventory of methods that should form the back bone of your fundraising efforts. These are, literally, your "bread and butter."
“So, where do nonprofits get their revenue?
• Individuals are the largest source of funding for nonprofit organizations. According to Giving USA, total charitable giving in the U.S. reached more than $303 billion in 2009. Of that amount 75% came from individuals.
• Corporations give in order to get...exposure, publicity, community respect, market share. Their funding is more episodic, revolving around particular campaigns, events, and projects. Corporate funding can be a good source of support for new initiatives, special programs, and special events. Look for opportunities to form partnerships for sponsorships and cause-related marketing.
• Federal, State and Local Governments. Many nonprofit institutions benefit from all levels of government. Obvious examples are public education, higher education, and the public media. Federal, state, and local government grants fund many programs provided by nonprofits, especially in areas such as urban human service nonprofits, and healthcare. Grants.gov provides up-to-date information and a directory of federal grants.”
Friday, July 1, 2011
Leveraging Social Programs
New language, with other tweaks of the idea emerging from the 80’s and 90’s when venture capitalists got involved in philanthropy on a large scale—think the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—and called it venture philanthropy.
This article from Harvard Business Review reports.
An excerpt.
“Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, writing in HBR (December, 2006 and January-February, 2011), advance the idea of creating shared value by developing strategies and policies that enhance the competitiveness of the company while advancing social and economic conditions of the community.
“An alternative that has similar objectives but may be easier to implement and justify is leveraged social programs — programs that leverage a firm's assets and skills and have a direct effect on brands and customer relationships.
“Shared value can be achieved by offerings that address social needs as GE has done with economagination, by sustainability programs such as those of Walmart, or by enhancing rural development and water conservation for communities where there are local operations as Nestle has done.
“Shared value suggests that profits that are imbued with a social purpose can enable companies to grow while advancing society. It frames the enterprise mission and objectives in a new way. All profits are not equal. Those that advance society are better and those that detract from society are inferior. In my view the concept of shared value and its label advance the practice of management by broadening objectives and can potentially change the relative perception of business and its role in creating social good.
“However, I also see some practical implementation issues. First, although at a high level of abstraction it works, it is not clear how many decisions would be affected by the shared value concept. If a sustainability program will reduce costs or a local community program will increase productivity, a shared value justification will not be needed. If a societal beneficial product line will have customer support, it can be justified, as it was at GE, without a shared value rationale.”
This article from Harvard Business Review reports.
An excerpt.
“Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, writing in HBR (December, 2006 and January-February, 2011), advance the idea of creating shared value by developing strategies and policies that enhance the competitiveness of the company while advancing social and economic conditions of the community.
“An alternative that has similar objectives but may be easier to implement and justify is leveraged social programs — programs that leverage a firm's assets and skills and have a direct effect on brands and customer relationships.
“Shared value can be achieved by offerings that address social needs as GE has done with economagination, by sustainability programs such as those of Walmart, or by enhancing rural development and water conservation for communities where there are local operations as Nestle has done.
“Shared value suggests that profits that are imbued with a social purpose can enable companies to grow while advancing society. It frames the enterprise mission and objectives in a new way. All profits are not equal. Those that advance society are better and those that detract from society are inferior. In my view the concept of shared value and its label advance the practice of management by broadening objectives and can potentially change the relative perception of business and its role in creating social good.
“However, I also see some practical implementation issues. First, although at a high level of abstraction it works, it is not clear how many decisions would be affected by the shared value concept. If a sustainability program will reduce costs or a local community program will increase productivity, a shared value justification will not be needed. If a societal beneficial product line will have customer support, it can be justified, as it was at GE, without a shared value rationale.”
Friday, May 27, 2011
The B Corporation
The B Corporation is an innovative way to do some good for the community and make money, as reported by the Stanford Social Innovation Review.
An excerpt.
“Being the only one of something—whatever that something is—generally has one of two results. Either it makes you hot stuff or it backfires. In business, you hope for the first. It’s supply and demand at its finest: Less of you increases the desire for you. But move away from theory and into practice, and real life may not always work that way. Sometimes being the only one of something means that fewer people understand you or realize what you truly have to offer. Instead of becoming rare, you become an anomaly—the product people aren’t quite sure what to do with, an outcast.
“I am the owner of In Every Language, Kentucky’s only certified B Corporation. Not only are we the only B in Kentucky, which means we’ve been certified as a socially responsible business, we’re the only B in our industry. So if anybody understands what it’s like to be the only one of something in business, it’s me.
“Even before certification, In Every Language was a social enterprise. Based in Louisville, Ky., In Every Language provides translating, interpreting, and other language services to clients around the world. That’s the business part of what we do. When it comes to the social part, we do two different things.
“First, the community nature of translation is inherent. Translators take what one person says and translate it into another language, so another person can understand. Without translators, information wouldn’t pass correctly between cultures and countries, international misunderstandings would develop, and wars could start. The American Translators Association claims that it takes less time to train a fighter pilot than it takes to train an Arabic interpreter, and the interpreter is more important to national security.
“Less frighteningly, community interpreters help patients better understand their course of care and help immigrants obtain access to community services. Both translators and interpreters provide access to information and knowledge that the language barrier blocked before. Being a translator automatically means being a helper. The sheer fact that In Every Language is a translation provider automatically integrates social cause into our business because, regardless of the message translated, social benefit lies in the act of translating itself.
“For me, though, this wasn’t enough. Although the translation industry is replete with social benefit, not every translation company is a social enterprise. In Every Language is the industry’s only certified B Corporation for a reason: We do translation differently.”
An excerpt.
“Being the only one of something—whatever that something is—generally has one of two results. Either it makes you hot stuff or it backfires. In business, you hope for the first. It’s supply and demand at its finest: Less of you increases the desire for you. But move away from theory and into practice, and real life may not always work that way. Sometimes being the only one of something means that fewer people understand you or realize what you truly have to offer. Instead of becoming rare, you become an anomaly—the product people aren’t quite sure what to do with, an outcast.
“I am the owner of In Every Language, Kentucky’s only certified B Corporation. Not only are we the only B in Kentucky, which means we’ve been certified as a socially responsible business, we’re the only B in our industry. So if anybody understands what it’s like to be the only one of something in business, it’s me.
“Even before certification, In Every Language was a social enterprise. Based in Louisville, Ky., In Every Language provides translating, interpreting, and other language services to clients around the world. That’s the business part of what we do. When it comes to the social part, we do two different things.
“First, the community nature of translation is inherent. Translators take what one person says and translate it into another language, so another person can understand. Without translators, information wouldn’t pass correctly between cultures and countries, international misunderstandings would develop, and wars could start. The American Translators Association claims that it takes less time to train a fighter pilot than it takes to train an Arabic interpreter, and the interpreter is more important to national security.
“Less frighteningly, community interpreters help patients better understand their course of care and help immigrants obtain access to community services. Both translators and interpreters provide access to information and knowledge that the language barrier blocked before. Being a translator automatically means being a helper. The sheer fact that In Every Language is a translation provider automatically integrates social cause into our business because, regardless of the message translated, social benefit lies in the act of translating itself.
“For me, though, this wasn’t enough. Although the translation industry is replete with social benefit, not every translation company is a social enterprise. In Every Language is the industry’s only certified B Corporation for a reason: We do translation differently.”
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sacramento’s Philanthropy
As this story in the Sacramento Bee notes, the philanthropic picture is Sacramento is pretty good, but—as with many things—can certainly improve.
An excerpt.
“Residents of the Sacramento region are less likely to give to charity than their counterparts nationwide – and the average amount given per household lags behind the national average.
“These are among the findings of the Greater Sacramento Generosity Project scheduled for release today, and the impetus for a campaign this fall to boost charitable giving.
“The project, commissioned by the Sacramento Region Community Foundation and the Nonprofit Resource Center, found that 62 percent of households in the four-county region — El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo – give to charities, compared with 66 percent of households nationwide. The average annual contribution per donor household in the Sacramento region is $1,990, trailing the national average of $2,355.
“Representatives of philanthropic organizations say individual giving is essential to filling the gaps left by cuts in government services.
"For a lot of nonprofits, the downturn in the economy has created a greater demand for their services," said Ruth Blank, chief executive officer of the Sacramento Region Community Foundation.
"This is about individual giving," said Ann Lucas, a consultant and former executive director of the Nonprofit Resource Center in Sacramento. "A lot of the time we look to the corporate sector to give."
“But nationally, she said, only about 5 percent of charitable giving comes from corporate donors, and an additional 12 percent from foundations. Individual donations account for 83 percent.”
An excerpt.
“Residents of the Sacramento region are less likely to give to charity than their counterparts nationwide – and the average amount given per household lags behind the national average.
“These are among the findings of the Greater Sacramento Generosity Project scheduled for release today, and the impetus for a campaign this fall to boost charitable giving.
“The project, commissioned by the Sacramento Region Community Foundation and the Nonprofit Resource Center, found that 62 percent of households in the four-county region — El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo – give to charities, compared with 66 percent of households nationwide. The average annual contribution per donor household in the Sacramento region is $1,990, trailing the national average of $2,355.
“Representatives of philanthropic organizations say individual giving is essential to filling the gaps left by cuts in government services.
"For a lot of nonprofits, the downturn in the economy has created a greater demand for their services," said Ruth Blank, chief executive officer of the Sacramento Region Community Foundation.
"This is about individual giving," said Ann Lucas, a consultant and former executive director of the Nonprofit Resource Center in Sacramento. "A lot of the time we look to the corporate sector to give."
“But nationally, she said, only about 5 percent of charitable giving comes from corporate donors, and an additional 12 percent from foundations. Individual donations account for 83 percent.”
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Catholic Charitable Works
Catholic Charities is the largest private nonprofit provider of charitable work in the United States only surpassed by the federal government, and the overall charitable work of the Roman Catholic Church is thought by many to be the largest source of charitable help in the world.
For many years, committed Catholics have struggled with the wandering missions of many of its most historical charitable efforts, but lately, that has begun to change, as this story from the Catholic News Agency reports on the changes in one of the largest of them, Caritas.
An excerpt.
“Rome, Italy, May 24, 2011 / 11:35 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The goal of a new slogan adopted by the Vatican’s official charity is being called “unrealistic” by the Church official charged with overseeing the organization.
“Cardinal Robert Sarah said he doesn’t understand Caritas International’s new theme –
“One Human Family – Zero Poverty,” which was unveiled at the charity’s annual meeting this week in Rome.
“I think it would be wise not to follow some unrealistic slogans. But, I'm very hesitant to understand what zero poverty means, because Christ said we will always have the poor. So, what is a realistic way we can fight the poverty? But, it's difficult to absolutely cancel out poverty,” he told CNA May 22.
“The slogan is both the theme for this week’s conference and for the organization’s strategic document for the next four years.
“The cardinal’s comments come at a difficult time for Caritas. The organization faces criticism from Cardinal Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, and others for a perceived lack of Catholic identity.
“Earlier this year, the Vatican blocked Caritas’ current general secretary, Lesley-Anne Knight, from running for re-appointment to her post. The charity’s governance is also being revamped to give Vatican officials more control over its work.
“Cardinal Sarah alluded to these concerns in his opening remarks at the Caritas meeting on Sunday, which was attended by roughly 300 delegates.
“I believe it is important to understand that our charitable organizations are located within the Church and not alongside her,” he said.
“A Caritas that wasn’t an ecclesial expression would have no meaning or existence. The Church cannot be considered as a partner of Catholic organizations. They are the organizations that take part in her mission.”
“He also stressed that the agency’s work is “not merely philanthropic” but above all “entails giving back to human persons all their dignity as children of God.”
For many years, committed Catholics have struggled with the wandering missions of many of its most historical charitable efforts, but lately, that has begun to change, as this story from the Catholic News Agency reports on the changes in one of the largest of them, Caritas.
An excerpt.
“Rome, Italy, May 24, 2011 / 11:35 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The goal of a new slogan adopted by the Vatican’s official charity is being called “unrealistic” by the Church official charged with overseeing the organization.
“Cardinal Robert Sarah said he doesn’t understand Caritas International’s new theme –
“One Human Family – Zero Poverty,” which was unveiled at the charity’s annual meeting this week in Rome.
“I think it would be wise not to follow some unrealistic slogans. But, I'm very hesitant to understand what zero poverty means, because Christ said we will always have the poor. So, what is a realistic way we can fight the poverty? But, it's difficult to absolutely cancel out poverty,” he told CNA May 22.
“The slogan is both the theme for this week’s conference and for the organization’s strategic document for the next four years.
“The cardinal’s comments come at a difficult time for Caritas. The organization faces criticism from Cardinal Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, and others for a perceived lack of Catholic identity.
“Earlier this year, the Vatican blocked Caritas’ current general secretary, Lesley-Anne Knight, from running for re-appointment to her post. The charity’s governance is also being revamped to give Vatican officials more control over its work.
“Cardinal Sarah alluded to these concerns in his opening remarks at the Caritas meeting on Sunday, which was attended by roughly 300 delegates.
“I believe it is important to understand that our charitable organizations are located within the Church and not alongside her,” he said.
“A Caritas that wasn’t an ecclesial expression would have no meaning or existence. The Church cannot be considered as a partner of Catholic organizations. They are the organizations that take part in her mission.”
“He also stressed that the agency’s work is “not merely philanthropic” but above all “entails giving back to human persons all their dignity as children of God.”
Thursday, May 5, 2011
American Philanthropy, European Perspective
In this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review (free access until 5/11 then requires a subscription, well worth it by the way) , the author examines the state of philanthropy since Democracy in America, which everyone in nonprofit work should have a copy of.
An excerpt from the article.
“The locus classicus of European bewilderment with the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal study Democracy in America, first published in 1835. Some of the original wonder at the American way of life has never left Europeans. Somehow the English colonies pulled off a societal experiment, which so far Europeans had dreamed of only in complex works of political philosophy or smothered in the bloodshed of failed revolutions. In this new land of milk and honey, commoners could make a fortune, citizens united in liberty to pursue matters of mutual gain, and equality ran deeper than anywhere else.
“Much has changed in 175 years. And yet a quick glance at the latest thinking about not-for-profit management and philanthropy reveals some profound differences between the ways American and European practitioners look at today’s major societal challenges.
“I went to Stanford University last fall to attend “Leading During Times of Change,” a nonprofit management conference organized by this magazine and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. I was with a group of peers from the Dutch charity sector, leaders in the fields of child welfare, health care, and philanthropic management. We enjoyed an excellent seminar complemented with instructive field visits to nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“What probably struck me most during our visit is the almost unquestioned belief Americans have in the value of an entrepreneurial approach to just about everything—and with it, a deep-seated suspicion of anything that smells of government. Hospitals are better off if they are run like health care businesses, with clients rather than patients. Unemployment is best tackled by social entrepreneurs, who help people set up their own (small) businesses. Philanthropy is largely redefined as social innovation. And market failures are often seen as the root cause of societal problems. An entire worldview transpires through these assumptions, a worldview I only partly share.
ACT AS A CATALYST
“I believe that the three main actors in society must all pay their dues. Businesses create economic value, provide jobs, and lay the basis for material prosperity. Governments set the stage, create and maintain a level playing field, pass laws, make sure there is an independent judiciary, keep us away from war and crime, collect taxes, protect the weak and vulnerable, and generally look after the public good. Civil society provides the checks and balances that are needed to hold government accountable and businesses transparent. It is that most valued place in democratic society where citizens rally together to pursue a common goal on a voluntary basis beyond the nucleus of their family or the context of their employer or political party.
“In my preferred blueprint, civil society organizations are privately funded, to prevent collusion or mission creep; governments leave the provision of commercial services to entrepreneurs; and businessmen mind their business rather than tell us how to live or who should lead. Seen from this perspective, a thriving civil society is a good indicator of the health and wealth of any democracy. For nonprofit leaders, it is important to figure out where you stand in this tangled trio, to determine what type of mission you will try to accomplish and which management principles you will adopt before you frame an issue.”
An excerpt from the article.
“The locus classicus of European bewilderment with the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal study Democracy in America, first published in 1835. Some of the original wonder at the American way of life has never left Europeans. Somehow the English colonies pulled off a societal experiment, which so far Europeans had dreamed of only in complex works of political philosophy or smothered in the bloodshed of failed revolutions. In this new land of milk and honey, commoners could make a fortune, citizens united in liberty to pursue matters of mutual gain, and equality ran deeper than anywhere else.
“Much has changed in 175 years. And yet a quick glance at the latest thinking about not-for-profit management and philanthropy reveals some profound differences between the ways American and European practitioners look at today’s major societal challenges.
“I went to Stanford University last fall to attend “Leading During Times of Change,” a nonprofit management conference organized by this magazine and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. I was with a group of peers from the Dutch charity sector, leaders in the fields of child welfare, health care, and philanthropic management. We enjoyed an excellent seminar complemented with instructive field visits to nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“What probably struck me most during our visit is the almost unquestioned belief Americans have in the value of an entrepreneurial approach to just about everything—and with it, a deep-seated suspicion of anything that smells of government. Hospitals are better off if they are run like health care businesses, with clients rather than patients. Unemployment is best tackled by social entrepreneurs, who help people set up their own (small) businesses. Philanthropy is largely redefined as social innovation. And market failures are often seen as the root cause of societal problems. An entire worldview transpires through these assumptions, a worldview I only partly share.
ACT AS A CATALYST
“I believe that the three main actors in society must all pay their dues. Businesses create economic value, provide jobs, and lay the basis for material prosperity. Governments set the stage, create and maintain a level playing field, pass laws, make sure there is an independent judiciary, keep us away from war and crime, collect taxes, protect the weak and vulnerable, and generally look after the public good. Civil society provides the checks and balances that are needed to hold government accountable and businesses transparent. It is that most valued place in democratic society where citizens rally together to pursue a common goal on a voluntary basis beyond the nucleus of their family or the context of their employer or political party.
“In my preferred blueprint, civil society organizations are privately funded, to prevent collusion or mission creep; governments leave the provision of commercial services to entrepreneurs; and businessmen mind their business rather than tell us how to live or who should lead. Seen from this perspective, a thriving civil society is a good indicator of the health and wealth of any democracy. For nonprofit leaders, it is important to figure out where you stand in this tangled trio, to determine what type of mission you will try to accomplish and which management principles you will adopt before you frame an issue.”
Monday, April 18, 2011
Philanthropy
A nice article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy about how the rich feel about philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“Three people who have signed the Giving Pledge—a commitment to give away at least half of their fortunes—spoke on Thursday about why they think rich people should donate more and what they hope the pledge will achieve.
“John Morgridge, chairman emeritus of Cisco, and his wife, Tashia, were joined by Lorry Lokey, founder of Business Wire, for an evening conversation at the Global Philanthropy Forum, an annual meeting for donors.
“The Morgridges were among a small group who attended the very first dinner organized by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates in May 2009, even before the pledge idea was fully baked. Mr. Morgridge said that people at the initial dinner floated the idea of doing videos and interviews to promote the pledge to others but instead decided that hosting more dinners would be the best way to try to recruit other wealthy people to join.
“After that first dinner, the Morgridges said they took a little time to think over whether they wanted to sign the pledge. Mr. Lokey said he agreed while on the phone with Mr. Buffett, who called him with the proposal.
“I said yes right away, because the money was already gone,” joked Mr. Lokey, who has already given most of his fortune to education, medical research, and other causes. “When you pitch in and make it public, it encourages others.”
He continued: “We’ve got all kinds of billionaires sitting on their rear ends and doing nothing. [Mr. Buffett] said he wanted me to be an example of how far beyond 50 percent you can go.”
An excerpt.
“Three people who have signed the Giving Pledge—a commitment to give away at least half of their fortunes—spoke on Thursday about why they think rich people should donate more and what they hope the pledge will achieve.
“John Morgridge, chairman emeritus of Cisco, and his wife, Tashia, were joined by Lorry Lokey, founder of Business Wire, for an evening conversation at the Global Philanthropy Forum, an annual meeting for donors.
“The Morgridges were among a small group who attended the very first dinner organized by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates in May 2009, even before the pledge idea was fully baked. Mr. Morgridge said that people at the initial dinner floated the idea of doing videos and interviews to promote the pledge to others but instead decided that hosting more dinners would be the best way to try to recruit other wealthy people to join.
“After that first dinner, the Morgridges said they took a little time to think over whether they wanted to sign the pledge. Mr. Lokey said he agreed while on the phone with Mr. Buffett, who called him with the proposal.
“I said yes right away, because the money was already gone,” joked Mr. Lokey, who has already given most of his fortune to education, medical research, and other causes. “When you pitch in and make it public, it encourages others.”
He continued: “We’ve got all kinds of billionaires sitting on their rear ends and doing nothing. [Mr. Buffett] said he wanted me to be an example of how far beyond 50 percent you can go.”
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Nonprofits & Government Funding
As I have long advocated, nonprofits funded by the government should make the strongest effort to build a private philanthropic base to carry them over when political and budgetary decisions can—which they will continually—threaten their funding stream.
The current situation, as reported by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, is certainly one of those times.
An excerpt.
“As lawmakers and President Obama intensify their efforts to close the federal deficit, nearly every kind of nonprofit program financed by the government will have to fight to keep the budget scalpel at bay.
“This month’s battle over how much the government will spend in the 2011 fiscal year, which is more than half over, and a plan for the 2012 budget released by House Republicans both sent the message that programs to help low-income people, promote the arts, alleviate poverty overseas, and provide a range of other services will face a tough time preserving current levels of spending.
“In a compromise over the 2011 budget, Congressional leaders and the White House agreed to cut almost $40-billion from 2010 spending, leaving few non-defense programs untouched.
“In addition to an across-the-board cut of 0.2 percent, the plan--approved by both the House and Senate on Thursday--will trim money for the arts, community health centers, family planning, international aid programs, legal services for the poor, national service, and other areas that provide aid to nonprofits and the people they serve.
“The cuts were not as deep as the Republicans who control the House had sought, but many lawmakers have made it clear that their battle to cut the size of the federal government has only begun.”
The current situation, as reported by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, is certainly one of those times.
An excerpt.
“As lawmakers and President Obama intensify their efforts to close the federal deficit, nearly every kind of nonprofit program financed by the government will have to fight to keep the budget scalpel at bay.
“This month’s battle over how much the government will spend in the 2011 fiscal year, which is more than half over, and a plan for the 2012 budget released by House Republicans both sent the message that programs to help low-income people, promote the arts, alleviate poverty overseas, and provide a range of other services will face a tough time preserving current levels of spending.
“In a compromise over the 2011 budget, Congressional leaders and the White House agreed to cut almost $40-billion from 2010 spending, leaving few non-defense programs untouched.
“In addition to an across-the-board cut of 0.2 percent, the plan--approved by both the House and Senate on Thursday--will trim money for the arts, community health centers, family planning, international aid programs, legal services for the poor, national service, and other areas that provide aid to nonprofits and the people they serve.
“The cuts were not as deep as the Republicans who control the House had sought, but many lawmakers have made it clear that their battle to cut the size of the federal government has only begun.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
